Cureton v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 22171.,22171. |
| Citation | 134 US App. DC 144,413 F.2d 418 |
| Parties | Milton CURETON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. John C. Lawrence (appointed by this court), Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. D. William Subin, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Harold H. Titus, Jr., now Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief for appellee.
Before FAHY, Senior Circuit Judge, and McGOWAN and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.
Our previous decision in Cureton v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 396 F.2d 671, involved the convictions of this appellant at a trial held in part during his absence.1 We remanded the case to the District Court for a fuller development of the facts, to be followed by findings and a conclusion, as to whether the appellant's absence was of a character which warranted the court in proceeding with the trial. The standards by which this was to be determined were set forth in our opinion. We then stated:
Should the court as a result of the remand in this case decide the trial should not have continued, the judgment will be set aside, otherwise it will remain in effect, subject to such rights of appeal as may then appertain.
130 U.S.App.D.C. at 27, 396 F.2d at 676.
The present appeal is from the determination of the court that the judgment of conviction remain in effect. This determination followed a hearing after which the judge filed a detailed memorandum which contains his findings upon the basis of which his determination was made. These findings fully meet the requirements of our remand; and since they have adequate evidentiary support in the record and are not clearly erroneous,2 the conclusion of the District Court that the judgment should remain in effect validly followed.
Affirmed.
1 The convictions were of housebreaking (22 D.C.Code § 1801), arson (22 D.C. Code § 401), and malicious destruction of personal property of a value in excess of $200.00 (22 D.C.Code § 403).
2 The clearly erroneous standard was not applicable to the situation dealt with in our prior decision. Cureton v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. at 27 n. 10, 396 F.2d at 676 n. 10.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Snyder
...130 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 396 F.2d 671; United States v. Cureton (D.D.C.1968) 302 F.Supp. 1065; and Cureton v. United States (D.C.Cir. 1969), 134 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 413 F.2d 418) should be the appropriate test--i.e., that defendant's absence was knowing and voluntary.' (People v. Connolly, supra,......
-
Haley v. State
...light of the other circumstances bearing on the question. United States v. Cureton, 302 F.Supp. 1065 (D.D.C.1968) Aff'd., 134 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 413 F.2d 418 (1969) is another case in which facts similar to the instant case justified a finding that the accused's absence was voluntary. It was......
-
Gilbert v. State
...the defendant knowingly and voluntarily absented himself.' (302 F.Supp. at p. 1069.) In the third Cureton case (Cureton v. United States (1969) 134 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 413 F.2d 418), the determination of the trial court was Defendant's constitutional right to be present at trial is involved a......
-
Wade v. United States
...case and, based on the District Court's findings at the hearing on the remand, later affirmed the conviction. Cureton v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 413 F.2d 418 (1969). 9 The reason his absence in that case was deemed tantamount to a plea of guilty was that he was to be the only d......